With Bush calling for conservation, does anyone know how much oil infrastructure damage has occured as a result of Hurricane Katrina and Rita?
Posted by Craig at September 26, 2005 10:55 PMOne of the things that amaze me is how many people misunderstand the US tax system... fact - the current tax system isn't based on wealth it's based on income - so if you are in debt due to medical bills and win the lottery guess what - even if the winnings would only get you to break even, the government still takes them.
Income tax is inherently unfair because the truly rich don't have alot of 'income' they have alot of possesions - it's the poor and middle class who are trying to become rich that will always bear the burden of taxes. Calling for increases in income tax means you are targeting people who work hard... on the other hand a wonderful sales tax hits the rich where it matters - where they spend. It's much closer to a property tax another way to take from the truly rich - I'll never afford a $200,000 yacht so I'm totally cool taking 10%-20% on that from teh rich guy who wants to buy it (or bring's the property it into a US port if he's a US citizen shopping abroad). Its way more fair, and no harder to implement if you consider just how much effort goes into the current income based system.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at September 26, 2005 11:02 PMRight. If we do not win the hearts of Americans now, we never will. This is not a partisan call-to-arms. This is the simple realization that what we have now is not morally or ethically acceptable, and we must present a non-partisan, sound and reasonable path out of the very deep, very dark forest America is lost in.
Forget Bush, he is irrelevant. Unfortunately, so are the Democrats. Cut the crap, folks. Do you want President (fill in blank), or do you want to stop America from taking the last step off the cliff? We cannot screw around any more. Find someone, anyone, who can fix this wretched nation, and if we can all agree that this is a good, decent person, support them regardless of political stripe.
I know I will draw a lot of heat for this, but I honestly believe we are heading towards a Roman ruin if we do not heed the all too abundant signs.
Politicians, you are the fleas on the Plague Rats. All of you. If even one of you can lead this nation out of this morass, then do it. The rest of you, please just take the money and leave.
Fascinating!
OTEC makes cogent comments that I agree with! Now, the question becomes: is there a common ground for taking action to save the nation?
I personally (not representing The Left Coaster here) will stipulate that the Democrats are a poor choice for a national rescue, but am concerned that there is nothing else to turn to at this point where the GOP is beyond redemption. Even Lincoln and Goldwater couldn't save it now!
So what of this? If you agree with OTEC's comments, and feel similarly to tempus, then where do we go from here?
Posted by pessimist at September 27, 2005 03:10 AMIt's probably too early for revolution, huh?
Splitting the Democratic Party between the current hand-wringers and another "better" party will have no effect save to give the Republicans still more time to continue do what they're currently doing, unless they decide to shape up.
Politics is no longer "what's good for America" but "what's good for my party and for keeping my job as an elected representative?" I get more and more nervous each day about the state of this Union as it tears itself apart.
And OTEC makes some sense with the sales tax. My only concern would be that it would affect basic consumables and hit the pocketbooks of the lower-income folks. But then, aren't groceries tax exempt anyway? Interesting idea. OTEC, any stats or figures that could tell if a switch like this would bring in a comparable amount of money to what it's bringing now? And wouldn't a high sales tax really cut into demand across the board and cause ripples of supply cuts and job losses? Unless you're willing to concede that certain widgets are not eligible for the tax, which then leads us inexorably down the slippery slope of "then what is?" People expect the income tax, and as far as I know, there's not a huge outcry from it at this point from the majority of Americans other than a muffled grumbling.
Still, attempting to formulate possible public policies is just one thing we can do, even if there are better-funded think tanks that do that everyday.
I don't suppose there'd be a way to establish a coalition system like they do in Europe? Moderate Dems and spendthrift Reps could join forces to say "Alright kids, that's enough!" Could they really work together though? More importantly, would it be able to do anything?
Posted by DukeRevolution at September 27, 2005 04:47 AMSeptember 26, 2005 -- Another suicide covered up at the State Department.
State Department insiders are reporting another suicide of a State Department employee involved with Middle East policy. Although WMR is still trying to obtain the name of the deceased official, we can report that she worked in the Press and Public Diplomacy Branch of the State Department's Near East and South Asia Bureau. On November 7, 2003, State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research chief Iraqi analyst John J. Kokal was reported to have committed suicide by jumping head first to his death from the secured roof of the State Department's headquarters. A few weeks later, a former CIA official, Dr. Gus Weiss, an opponent of the Iraq war, reportedly jumped to his death from the Watergate complex, just a few blocks from the State Department.
Another "suicide" at Foggy Bottom
Both Kokal and the recent State Department suicide were later reported by senior department officials to be despondent over "personal" issues. However, in both cases, the State Department instituted an information blockade on details surrounding the deaths.
Must be tough working for the State Department. Whomever posted the two options about Brown, may not be far off.
Posted by Judith at September 27, 2005 05:11 AM"Moderate Dems and spendthrift Reps could join forces to say "Alright kids, that's enough!" Could they really work together though? More importantly, would it be able to do anything?"
DukeRevolution, they could, but they won't, even if it means saving this Country.
OT, I wonder what will happen when our heating bills go up 70% or more this winter? How many people will freeze to death because they can't pay their heating bills. Those on fixed incomes and the poor will be hurt the most. This will not help Bush either.
al gore...his lifes experience of public service and a sound understanding of our environment..can help...if theives hadn't stolen the election..the world would be a much much better place
Posted by dennis at September 27, 2005 05:32 AMOTEC,
So I guess you have no problem with the estate tax since it targets wealth, that has often been largely sheltered from income taxes, that is passed from generation to generation?
Posted by snark at September 27, 2005 05:51 AMOTEC:
Nice thought but how about this:
Everyone wealthy or not needs cash to live. You can get this a few ways: Wages, income from investments, or inherit it. Right now the worst way (highest tax) way to get money on which to live is to work for wages.
Recongnize that we will probably always need an income tax (government is large and actually Americans like it that way). However we could increase capital gains rates, and inheritance rates while lowering income taxes.
The problem with sales tax is poor people HAVE to spend all they make to live, where a wealthier person (think high wage earner) has the option to spend less and therby reduce his tax burden.
The inheritance tax (must close loopholes) is where you hurt the wealthy. They hate it and it shows in the GOP rhetoric. It also supports what I think this country is about, the idea that one has opportunity in this country, and that it is an individuals effort that will be rewarded not the identity of his parents.
Everyone bashes democrats, is anyone else getting tired of the whinning? Democrats support more sane policy choices and (post Reagan anyway) have done a much better job at governing. They are simply out marketed by a republican machine that kicks out catchy nonsense like "death tax" and "no child left behind".
The problem with the democratic party is that they can't articulate a set of guiding principles that are simple and compelling. Democrats support better policies, but its impossible to build support on an emotional level by blathering on about policy.
Republicans have figured this out. They connect with the electorate with a small government (low tax) / we love Jesus message. So our idiot electorate thiks this is all goodness so why not vote for republicans. Especially when the cancophany they hear from democrats is unintelligible for its complexity and strained positions.
My advise for the DNC is lay out principles; two, three at the most. Its OK to talk policy at certain forums but always tie it back to your two guiding principles, and always talk up these principles at a minimum of three times in every speech/engagement.
Only when a largely disinterested voter has an emotional response to your principles will they be responsive to your candidates.
As for what these principles should be: how about
justice and responsibility
Justice could be tied to most good governance/social issues (minimum wage, tax policy, budget deficits "its unjust to saddle our children with out debt")
Responsibility can be tied to environmental issues and fixing our disaterous forign policy.
They also have ulterior meanings Justice can help bolster (with the right message managment) the democrats percieved softness on crime. Responsibility can be juxtaposed to the clear lack of reponsibility shown by the GOP.
The pitch writes itself: vote democratic and you vote for a just society. Democrats stand behind thier policies. Support with images of hard working white people strugling to make ends meet and juxtapose with Bush running away from policy after policy.
Posted by Maya at September 27, 2005 05:58 AMScl jstc crtnly s lltng lttl ncknm fr th lft's rp sht f crms gnst hmnty.
[Editor: ignore=off]I see the "troll generator" has left its mark again.
Mafia Justice certainly is a lilting little nickname for the right's rap sheet of crimes against humanity.
Posted by at September 27, 2005 06:28 AMIn honor of the president's belated embrace of conservation the wife and I are loading up the car* and driving clear across Connecticut for a romantic weekend, sans kids, to celebrate 10 years of wedded bliss.
*Some of you may recall that several weeks back my car was stolen from in front of my house. Well, I am glad to report that as of Saturday we have it back. I missed it. It's just a Honda CRV but I really did miss it. It was found shortly after being stolen thanks to LoJack. A worthwhile investment if you don't have it. Our car was found in the upper Bronx by two different police departments within 24 hours of being stolen because of the LoJack system. It had the damage you'd expect on a stolen car, broken window and shattered steering column, but was otherwise intact. Repairs are complete. I've got to give props to MET Life Insurance. They made the entire process hassle free. Car repair bill checks have already been received. Our out of pocket expenses were minimal. They even hooked us up with a rental car for the entire 20 day period it took to get the car repaired and they picked up the tab. Not sure how there premiums compare to other companies (we can afford a little more than some people) but the service was phenomenal.
Oh yeah, our rental car was a Chevy Colorada extended cab pickup truck! They gave it to us at the "economy" rate. When the rental guy pulled up with it I just stood there until he came over and handed me the keys. I was a little ambivilant about taking the car at first. Especially since Katrina had just hit and gas prices were through the roof but I'm doing some reno work on my house and it actually came in handy. It amazed me how much gas it used. You can almost watch the gas gauge move lower as you drive. And to think how many people I see on a daily basis driving these things around doing their local errands and shopping. Well needless to say I'm glad to have my CRV back. Although my 6 year old was hoping we were gonna keep the pickup. She liked the way all the buttons lit up at night. Kids!
Posted by muckcat at September 27, 2005 06:29 AMThe free market certainly is a lilting little nickname for the bush administration's ever-growing rap sheet of kleptocracy, mass murder and fear-mongering.
come to think of it, "fear-mongering" is another way of saying "terrorism", innit?
Posted by at September 27, 2005 06:47 AM'Cat - "only" a CRV?
Sheesh. I drive a Toyota 1992 pickup. It's a frickin' cropduster compared to the modern SUV's, including the CRV.
Congratulations on 10!
Posted by idiosynchronic at September 27, 2005 07:46 AMDon't have much time to reply, but in short the estate tax isn't worth much. Consider:
1. Life insurance is paid for with after tax dollars - thus is tax free.
2. Most large accounts are transferred over years of joint ownership, thus at the time of death aren't necessarily taxable. Note an early death can expose them to taxes, but with things like trusts in our system fact is the truly rich aren't threatened by an inheritance tax.
3. Existing IRA/401K for people that die are inherited and the money can continue to grow tax free - but the person taking the money out of the deceased account pays income not capital gains tax on the money.
4. Who is hit by an inheritance tax are people liek small business owners and small farmers, these estates are generally under that $10 million mark that the estate tax exemption peaks at in the coming year before going away briefly. Fact is these people should have the same security that someone with a large IRA has in the event of death (which is why the limit needs to be higher - though perhaps less then $10 million.)
Fact is most people think the 'estate' tax sounds good, but in reality it mainly targets the middle class (and would target the poor but society did exempt them.)
Fact is passing a moderate estate is part of the American ideal, since the underlying goal for most people is to create a better life for their children and estates target a person's children. Pursuing the estate tax for Democrats is a loss because in their hearts the middle class knows who the estate tax really targets.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at September 27, 2005 08:24 AMShorter OTEC,
The wealthy have ways to beat the system so don't bother trying to get anything from 'em.
So tell me OTEC. How is a national sales tax going to rectify any of this? It's a tax on consumption. The lower and middle classes spend most or all of their income. The wealthy do not as you so clearly illustrate in your comment. How is a tax on consumption supposed to be fairer than the income tax?
And, nice that you slipped in the "small farmer" reference. To bad no one can find a case of a small farm being lost because of estate taxes.
Posted by Tim at September 27, 2005 08:34 AMIt's good to hear that muckcat's had a decent outcome to a horrid experence.
On OTEC's idea of taxing wealth instead of income, some of you may remember the idea of the single tax.
Granted, it would probabally take a revolution before this idea could even be considered, but scince we're talking about ideas I thought I'd throw it out.
Posted by rlp at September 27, 2005 08:48 AMAnd, nice that you slipped in the "small farmer" reference. Too bad no one can find a case of a small farm being lost because of estate taxes.
Not to mention that huge conglomorate agribusiness has almost eliminated the family farm.
Posted by ann at September 27, 2005 08:51 AMLet me add that I disagree totally with OTEC on the estate tax. In fact the current attempt to repeal the estate tax is one reason the debt is growing so fast.
Posted by rlp at September 27, 2005 08:51 AMActually Echo Chamber, several of your claims aren't true. Abolishing the Estate Tax would cost the Treasury a trillion dollars over the next decade, and the impact upon small business owners and small farmers has always been hyped beyond the truth.
Here is a good source on the subject.
Posted by Steve Soto at September 27, 2005 08:51 AMFact is most people think the 'estate' tax sounds good, but in reality it mainly targets the middle class (and would target the poor but society did exempt them.)
Roughly 2% of estates are subject to the estate tax. 2%. Have we really reached the point in this country where the distribution of wealth is so extreem that 98% of the population exists at an economic level below middle class?
Posted by snark at September 27, 2005 08:57 AMsnark, And to think a lot of the wingnut visitors actually think they are getting a huge piece of the bu$h pie. That is what I really find amazing. Since bu$h exhibits no fiscal responsibility it will be left to some big bad Democrat to come in and force fiscal responsibility down our throats. Of course the wingnuts will take this like getting their mouths washed out with soap. It's invetible, we have to raise taxes to pay for the lagging infrastructure, in addition to the hurricane damage, the corruption, the defense spending and just the sorry mess that bu$h and co. will leave this once great nation.
I don't mind OTEC's idea of a national sales tax. At least we know everyone will pay the same. Maybe let those making less than 25k and retirees making less than 50k off the hook.
Conservatives (and those who play them on the Internet) claim to hate both the estate and income taxes. OK - then how do we ensure that everyone pays their share of the cost of the federal government? (NOTE: no matter how big or small, there will still be such an entity and it will have expenses that must be paid!)
Simple. Everyone - rich, poor, old, or young - pays a per capita taxe equal to their share of the expenses of the federal government. As I pointed out in my recent posts, each American owes $27,000 just for the federal debt, and this isn't taking the pending federal costs into account.
Since this amount is approximately equal to an full-time hourly wage of $13.50/hr., then it is clear that the majority of people who work for a living cannot afford the taxes they owe just for themselves. If they are also economically responsible for any offspring they have, then they are already in hock so deep they will never get out!
The only solution toward paying these tax obligations is for every adult to work off their debts to the nation by serving as a soldier in King George's Global War On Terror until such debt is paid.
Sounds simple enough even for Red Staters to understand, so put down those tools and pick up a gun, we're gonna have a whole lot o' fun!
Posted by pessimist at September 27, 2005 11:15 AMgroceries are taxed in Utah / there is a movement to repeal this unfortunate tax
Posted by Katherine Hunter at September 27, 2005 12:58 PMGroceries are taxed in IL as well. And if memory serves me correctly, both in NC and SC.
And now that I'm thinking....I remember that clothes aren't taxed in NJ.
Good luck with that federal sales tax idea.
Posted by ann at September 27, 2005 01:01 PMGroceries are taxed here in Idaho, as well as clothes and nearly everything else. But of course what can you expect in the most Republican of all the states in the US? However, in all fairness, I must point out that the extremely wealthy make out quite well here.
Posted by Hank at September 27, 2005 01:39 PMAs far as I know NYS taxes "prepared foods" at grocery stores but not canned or prepackaged food items.
Boy, this is like a confessional. I'm glad I got that off my chest.
Who's next.
Well, they did away with the sales tax on food in Missouri, but then came up with another tax to take it's place.
Posted by Judith at September 27, 2005 05:18 PMTim:
Part of your comment noted: "The lower and middle classes spend most or all of their income. The wealthy do not as you so clearly illustrate in your comment. " but that's not true, what I said was that the wealthy already have property which is not subsequent to gaining it taxed. Fact is the truly wealthy person already has assets. They don't expend any more assets in a given year then they need to, so actually in most cases they don't take any more in 'income' in a given year then they need to survive - so in that sense they match the middle class, but when they go to the store, they don't normally go to K-Mart they go other places. Similarly they don't just buy low ticket items.
As for detailed plans on setting up a national sales tax that is so far beyond what will be presented in blog comment that it's not worth discussing.
As for the link you provided Steve and the 2% figure for those impacted. In both cases those numbers are based on Bush's tax changes that you claim should be repealed. Before Bush the limit wasn't 1.5 mil it was 600K - and that is the number to which it will revert if changes are not made in the coming years. Of note even the $1Trillion you quote earlier is incorrect because it isn't the lost revenue, it is the lost revenue plus an estimated added cost. In other words that group has an agenda (as noted by their About us pages). What's interesting however is even they admit that small farms are impacted by the estate tax - and they claim that raising the limit on the estate tax would help reduce that... which is exactly what I propose - even if $10 mill is too high, its quite obvious that 600K in today's world of self financed retirements is too low.
The key here is I've been through the estate tax process it's complex (moreso then most on this message realize) but at the 600K level that existed prior to Bush it most definitely did hit the middle class - claim what you want about the new levels introduced by Bush but don't try to argue that Bush's change was bad but you like his new levels... make the argument against the 600K level.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at September 27, 2005 08:45 PMbtw, before some moron suggests I got a big inheritance, I didn't but I've been through the process (even when not a beneficiary). Here's a tip, don't name your family as the inheritors of your estate and then leave a large chunk of $$ to a charity outside your estate - you can end up leaving nothing or even only owed taxes to your estate. I can assure those on this message that most of you have no idea how screwed up the estate tax really is there are two sets of calculations and how the taxes are extracted can leave your 'taxable' estate paying way more then 50% based on your total estate - trust me this is one severly screwed up tax you are defending.
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at September 27, 2005 08:52 PMOTEC, I don't believe that anyone is defending the the paperwork and administration surrounding the estate tax. Certainly simplification of the process is possible, but that doesn't mean that we must get rid of the entire tax aspect to make it less complicated. And obviously, if the IRC is screwy, it should be corrected. We have the ability in our society to do that, and we should.
What I believe people are defending is the principle that when someone is successful in this country, they owe a debt to society and have an obligation to invest in the infrastructure which helped them to build their wealth. No one does it alone, and no one does it without some investment from the American taxpayers through federal government loans, susidies, water systems, sewage systems, roads, law enforcement, emergency services, etc.
Posted by ann at September 27, 2005 09:44 PMAnn,
Nor do I. My post didn't suggest that the death tax go away, but that it's minimum be raised and then indexed to keep it above the range of middle class citizens. I think that as a big issue the death tax is a loser, it's not the source of a significant (and as a percentage of our tax base of almost 2,000 billion, less then a billion is not statistically significant) but it carries alot of negative baggage - similar to the marriage tax.
People who argue for this tax have never worked around it and don't want to admit that it only hurts small business and small farms -( as an aside note that a small farm is just a small business that deals in agriculture.... and the disappearance of the small farm is a tragedy of our country and for the migrant worker who would normally take over such farms over time.) This tax should be moved out of reach of most Americans. As for paying for infrastructure - I think that's what our taxes do.
(Before someone asks, the budget number I cite comes from the CBO: http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0)
Posted by OutsideTheEchoChamber at September 28, 2005 01:54 AMGroceries are taxed in... both in NC and SC.
Yes, they are in both states.
the disappearance of the small farm is a tragedy of our country and for the migrant worker who would normally take over such farms over time.
Do you know what migrants, most undocumented and here illegally get paid? "Take over the farm" there ain't no 40 acrea and a mule in 21st cewntury America. You're so full of it.
Posted by rlp at September 28, 2005 05:33 AMOTEC, I was reading on andrewsullivan.com and came across this:
I support Bush's tax cuts on most areas (I exclude the estate tax, because it rewards inheritance rather than work).
That's the point. The estate tax acknowledges that one should actually work for their money. Please stop with the mythology that the estate tax hurts family farmers and small businesses the most - I suppose the is conceptually true because when Paris Hilton inherits money, she can certainly afford the estate tax whereas a family farmer (if there even were such a thing anymore) would not necessarily be able to afford the estate tax. So raise the threshold a bit. A bit....not millions.
As for paying for infrastructure - I think that's what our taxes do.
Exactly. And the estate tax is part of that mix. Clever attempt to switch your language from "estate tax" to "death tax" but we've all read the talking points and we're on to you. It doesn't have any impact here.
Posted by ann at September 28, 2005 05:59 AMAnd I might add, Dick and Lynn Cheney are considered small businesses. So is Bush. Probably Clinton, too. I think they've already benefited enough at the expense of the taxpayers. And I know you Reps would want anyone in Clinton's family to benefit from anything.
Posted by ann at September 28, 2005 06:48 AMthere isn't even anecdotal evidence of anyone losing a family farm due to the estate tax.
more theft, the only thing they know how to do.
Posted by benjoya at September 28, 2005 09:02 AMThere is a good sports analogy for keeping the estate tax, imagine the NFL selecting the players for this years pro bowl from the sons of the pro bowl players from 20 years ago. Yes, a few would take advantege of the lessons that their dad could give them about the business, but many of them be woefully unfit for the job.
Kind of sounds like the Bush administration if you think about it.
Posted by rlp at September 28, 2005 10:38 AM